
One film can produce many various looks depending on a whole host of factors. How was it shot: overexposed (and by how much), box speed, or underexposed (and by how much)? What gear was used, especially which lens? Were any filters used? What was the exact light situation? How was the film stored and handled? How was it developed, including how fresh were the chemicals, and what was the temperature and pH of the water? If it was printed, how was that handled and what paper was used? If it was scanned, which scanner was used, what were the settings, and what post-processing was done? How are you viewing the photo: print, light table, computer monitor, cellphone screen? There are a thousand factors that can affect the outcome—some a little, some a lot.
Sometimes I’ll get contradicting feedback on a certain Film Simulation Recipe. One person will say, I’ve shot with that film, and the Recipe matches almost exactly; another will say, I’ve shot with that film, and the Recipe is way off. That shouldn’t be surprising for the reasons pointed out in the last paragraph—both statements are probably quite true. There are other factors, of course, that are worth considering. One is called “memory color” (which is often mentioned by Fujifilm), in which we remember a film looking a certain way, but in reality our memory of it is a little off. I’ve experienced this personally, where I thought a certain group of settings looked exactly like some emulsion, but when I actually compared them side-by-side it was not such a close match after all. Which is preferable: memory color accuracy or technical accuracy? There’s no correct answer to that question, but you may prefer one over the other. Another significant factor is that, although Fujifilm does provide a fair amount of tools to customize aesthetics in-camera, there’s only so much that you can do with the options available to achieve a certain look. You can only get so close, and not a 100% match; however, it is surprising how close a Recipe will get sometimes. Also worth mentioning is that digital sensors and silver film behave quite divergently sometimes.
Fujifilm modeled the Classic Chrome Film Simulation after (non-specific) Kodak slide films from the 1980’s and ’90’s. Classic Chrome has some obvious similarities to both Kodachrome and Ektachrome; however, it’s not an exact facsimile of either (think of it more like a fictitious Kodak slide film). It does have a distinct Kodak-esque color palette, so it is a great Film Simulation to build Kodak Recipes on. The Nostalgic Neg. Film Simulation also has a Kodak-like palette, but it is intended to resemble prints from the 1970’s, and not projected slides or scanned film. Eterna and (to a lesser extent) PRO Neg. Std can be modified into Kodak aesthetics; however, they’re not modeled after any Kodak stocks. Circling back to Classic Chrome, I want to emphasize that it is primarily intended to replicate color reversal (slide) film, and not negative film.

The newest Film Simulation, called Reala Ace, is modeled after color negative film, and most closely resembled Fujicolor PRO 160C. Despite its name, it’s quite obviously inspired by the ISO 160 Fujicolor PRO line of films; basically, it’s a new-and-improved PRO Neg. Film Simulation—a similar yet better iteration of PRO Neg. Std and PRO Neg. Hi (kind of like when Kodak replaced the NC and VC versions of Portra and introduced a new iteration of the films in 2011, except we still have the two PRO Neg. options…). Reala Ace doesn’t have a distinct Kodak palette, but, like PRO Neg. Std, it can be made into a Kodak-like look. The advantage of using Reala Ace instead of Classic Chrome is that it retains that “print film” quality of the Film Simulation.
This new Kodak Pro 400 Recipe came about after some feedback that Reala Ace might be a better foundation for a Kodak Portra 400 look than Classic Chrome. I had previously considered the possibility, but hadn’t put any effort into creating it. So I researched pictures and fiddled with the camera settings. I made a few different versions, which matched some certain examples but were notably off from others. I had to narrow it down to which specific Kodak Portra 400 look I wanted to replicate, and get as close to that as I could, with some compromises. It was definitely a process, and sometimes quite frustrating, but I settled on these settings. One disadvantage of using Reala Ace, obviously, is that, at its core, it’s a Fujicolor look, and sometimes that still comes through. You could think of it as printing Kodak film on Crystal Archive paper instead of Endura or Ektacolor. That’s not what this Recipe mimics, but it is a way to make peace with the issue. Most of these pictures were reprocessed in-camera using this Recipe, and not directly captured with it; however, I do have a bunch of other pictures (that are perhaps “less inspiring”) that were actually captured with the Recipe, but I only included a couple of them.
In the end, I feel that I got close-but-no-cigar. I think, in certain situations with certain subjects and lighting, this Recipe can be quite convincing at mimicking Kodak Portra 400 film. There are pictures in this article that you could put side-by-side with certain Kodak Portra 400 frames, and it would be difficult to distinguish which was the film and which was the Recipe. But there are other images that are so far off that I could not find a matching Portra 400 look (trust me, I tried). So I would say that this Recipe is hit-or-miss, and that’s why I didn’t name it Kodak Portra 400 v3 (although that’s what it’s named in my cameras right now). It’s definitely Portra 400 related. The full name of the film is Kodak Professional Portra 400, so I’m calling this Recipe Kodak Pro 400. There’s also Pro Image 100, another Kodak negative film, and this Recipe by chance isn’t terribly far off from that, either; however, it’s not intended to resemble that emulsion, and isn’t quite as good of a match. Either way, like the other Portra Recipes, how close it is or isn’t depends on which pictures you are looking at.

I included a lot of sample pictures in this article, which will hopefully help to determine when this Recipe works well and when maybe it’s less than ideal. Like the film, it thrives in daylight, but this might be a better choice than some others in overcast situations. I also included a comparison of this Kodak Pro 400 Recipe with Reggie’s Portra, Kodak Portra 400, and Kodak Portra 400 v2 at the bottom of this article (for Reggie’s Portra and Kodak Portra 400, I set Color Chrome FX Blue to Off). I find it interesting that there are some common settings between this and the Kodak Portra 400 v2 Recipe, and also some opposite settings—that’s unintentional, just the way it worked out. Because this Recipe uses Reala Ace, it’s compatible with fifth-generation models, which (as of this writing) are the Fujifilm X-H2s, X-H2, X-T5, X-S20, X100VI, X-T50, X-M5, and X-E5. It’s also compatible with the latest GFX cameras: GFX100 II, GFX100S II, and GFX100RF. Those who have been dissatisfied with the Portra 400 Recipes may find that they like this one better; those who love the Portra 400 Recipes might not be convinced that this is an improvement. Personally, I really like it, and I might keep both this and Kodak Portra 400 v2 in my C1-C7, as there are times when one might be preferable over the other.
Film Simulation: Reala Ace
Dynamic Range: DR400
Grain Effect: Strong, Small
Color Chrome Effect: Off
Color Chrome FX Blue: Strong
White Balance: 5200K, +2 Red & -3 Blue
Highlight: -2
Shadow: 0
Color: +1
Sharpness: -2
High ISO NR: -4
Clarity: -2
ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400
Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +1 (typically)
Example photographs, all camera-made JPEGs captured using this Kodak Pro 400 Film Simulation Recipe on a Fujifilm X-T5 and X100VI:











































Comparison








This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm X-T5 in black:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Nuzira
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Nuzira
Fujifilm X100VI in black:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Nuzira
Fujifilm X100VI in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Moment, Nuzira
Find this Film Simulation Recipe and over 400 more on the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.


Very interesting comparison with the Portra family. Sometimes it’s very difficult to know which one it is. I love Reggie’s, but this one and other Portras can be a bit lacking in color in some scenarios. Looking at your pics, I feel that maybe with the new one it could be too much, hehe. But as you said: let’s try!
There are always some compromises. For example, in the Electric Sunset and California Sunset pictures, I found a nearly identical sunset captured on Portra 400 film; however, +2 Color more closely matched, but +2 Color is not a good match for skin tones, which are more similar to 0 Color (depending on whose Portra examples you are looking at, it can be anywhere from -2 to +1). Of course, there are so many different looks from the film depending on the photographer, so I found some examples that seemed similar from a handful of sources; after I felt like I was as close as I was going to get to that particular look (which took a few iterations to get there), I then tried to find a similar match of Portra film to each photo that I had made using the Recipe, and that’s where it fell apart: some pictures had a near perfect match, some had a quite similar (but not perfect) match, and others I could not find a match at all. So in a sense, I’m really happy with the results, and in a sense I’m really disappointed. But I think this Recipe is good, even if it doesn’t fully replicate Portra 400 film to the degree that I would like it to. Thanks for the feedback!
You should be happy! It’s a very nice recipe. I’ve already tested it and I really like it. Maybe I should set the Clarity to 0 because I use GlimmerGlass 1?
Just in case you want to check it, hehe (I just post-produced a 2-3 pics, adjusting the exposure a bit).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/113666935@N06/albums/72177720328952778/
Very nice photos! Thanks for sharing them.
I would consider the GlimmerGlass as a replacement to the Clarity, and would set it to 0. But it’s all personal preference. Maybe you like -2 Clarity combined with the filter.
First THANKS for all the hard work you do for us!!! With the first set of pictures, for me, it’s hard to tell the difference between them. However, the 2nd set, with the car, there is a definite difference with Pro 400 and Reggie’s, in the area of the color blue. The blue paint on the car turns almost green in the last two photos. Thanks again.
Of the various Portra 400 Recipes, this one is closest to Reggie’s Portra in sunny situations, and probably closest to Kodak Portra 400 (v1) in indoor and artificial light situations. It’s obviously not exactly the same as any of the others. Thanks for the input!
Thanks for this new recipe! I love the Portra look with a cool tone, very interesting and works great for landscape shots.
I appreciate your kind feedback!
Can you make a adox color implosion 100 recipie – maybe the most cool film at all times – cant understans why adox discontiued this
I appreciate the suggestion. I’ll look into it. Thanks!
Finally, a Portra 400 recipe that I can use, one that suits me, my surroundings and the light here in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Thank you so much for that, Ritchie. And thank you in general for your incredible commitment. Best regards, Erhard
You are very welcome, glad that you like it! 😀
Hi there and keep up the good work! The recipe looks amazing!
I have a X-T30II here and was wondering if there is a way to have something similar with it, as it doesn’t have the Film Simulation.
Thank you!
There are some similarities between PRO Neg Std and Reala Ace. If you use PNS and set Color to +4, Highlight to -1, Shadow to +0.5, and WB Shift -5 Blue, I bet you’d be in the general ballpark. Might have to refine it slightly from there.
Ah nice! Thanks for the tip! I‘ll give it a try. 👍🏻